Chuck Rosenberg on Lev Parnas:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

As always, Rosenberg delivers thoughtful, insightful comments. Just now on MSNBC he offered words of caution to the effect that prosecutors always have to be careful when dealing with guys like Parnas, i.e. people who have been indicted for other crimes and are awaiting trial. He pointed out that some of what Parnas said was second-hand information and that most of his first-hand information related to conversations with Giuliani, meaning that the other information would have to be verified somehow. Rosenberg also said that none of this means Parnas was lying - he very well could have been telling the truth, but considering the circumstances it will be essential to try to confirm his statements with documents or other witnesses. He also cautioned that people mustn't let confirmation bias - the tendency to believe things that support what you want to be true - to color their opinions about Parnas.

I thought Parnas seemed generally credible, and his story was not inconsistent with what is already known. I'm not entirely convinced about what he said about Hyde, though. Hyde might very well be just a crazy drunk and a hanger-on who wanted to be an important cog in the Trump wheel, and who just made up all that stuff about surveilling Yovanovich - but if that's what Parnas thought, why did he keep humoring Hyde instead of telling him to get lost and stop texting crazy stuff, especially when Hyde's texts sounded like he was planning something like a mob hit?

Rosenberg also thought it's likely that Parnas does not have a cooperation agreement with SDNY, because if he did he wouldn't be telling his story on TV. Why did Parnas go public instead of cooperating with prosecutors? Will he do so now that he's letting cats out of the bag on his own? Does he have more information that he is not sharing publicly? The second half of his interview is tonight. Stay tuned.

[hlthe2b]

1. No cooperation agreement has been reported elsewhere. Tribe comments on the "whys"

People who seem confused about what Lev Parnas hopes to gain from the compelling story he told on @maddow are awfully naive. Though spilling what he knows won’t help him vis-a-vis SDNY, it obviously reduces the incentive of the Russian mob and its Trumpian allies to kill the guy.

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Others have also speculated that he was trying to protect himself

from assassination by going public. Could be. But wouldn't cooperating with SNDY get his information on the record, too?

[hlthe2b]

10. While SDNY might be motivated to go after Giuliani, with Barr as AG, it seems unlikely

any agreement with Parnas--that could hurt Trump, Barr, or others in the administration would fly. The court approved the release of documentation still in Parnas' possession and Schiff's public release cleared the way for Parnas to talk. There was little SDNY could do at that point to stop him. And to the extent that there is a considerable faction within SDNY eager to get the word out (and particularly to take on Giuliani)--something I would not underestimate-- this was probably the path of least resistance.

But, no, I doubt it will help his own case with SDNY. I do believe his life might well be at risk and while I have doubts about the full veracity of some parts of what he had to say, I can believe this may well have bought him some protection. At least diminished any motivation by anyone to take him out.

[Kali]

12. lots are giving this argument about protection,

nobody's thinking about revenge. tiny is vindictive too.

[hlthe2b]

13. No doubt that has to be part of it.

[dhill926]

2. K & R....

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. Trump cannot be happy.

Nothing happens without Trump's knowledge.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I'm inclined to believe at least the broad outlines of Parnas' story

just because the WH and DoJ so adamantly insist that it's a pack of lies.

[hlthe2b]

14. Some of it is already corroborated by Congressional testimony.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Yes, and he does have some documents. My favorite is the Giuliani letter.

I think a lot of what he said will eventually be confirmed if it hasn't been already. It's just that given his current situation he's too easily dismissed by those who don't want his story to be true.

[gab13by13]

5. I'd go to Rachel Maddow instead of Bill Barr.

Just saying, I pretty much trust SDNY but Barr is still its boss. The simple reason why Parnas went to Rachel was to stay alive. Isn't that good enough reason to spill his guts?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Absolutely. But confirmation is still important.

[gratuitous]

8. Certainly Parnas' story needs to be tested

But for now, I'm satisfied with watching the Republicans turn themselves into pretzels trying to twist and turn and absolve themselves and go full Sgt. Schultz: "I know nussing!" Some of what Parnas has said and documented gibes with testimony and evidence already presented. Some of it is quite new or delves into areas that haven't had much light on them.

Maybe 95% of what he's saying is hooey, but even 5% of what he's saying is very damning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. The worst of it (so far; there's more this evening), I think, is

the fact that he (a "nobody," as he said) was able to get access to government officials in Ukraine only through the efforts of Giuliani, and he has a copy of Giuliani's letter stating that Giuliani was acting as Trump's personal attorney - meaning that the whole Ukraine business was orchestrated by Giuliani at Trump's direction and for Trump's personal benefit.

[Mike 03]

9. Thoughtful post

On the Hyde matter, I can understand humoring or placating someone who might be unbalanced rather than risking angering them. That's actually happened to me in a couple of circumstances. (Eventually, I had to call the police on one of them, but it was because he was beating up his girlfriend).

[Wounded Bear]

15. Parnas brought documents...

we'll have to wait and see if the documents corroborate his interview in any way.

Hell, in Repub world the accusation is enough to convict a Dem. Everything Parnas said needs to be checked out.

[padah513]

17. Some questions I wanted Rachael to ask Parnas:

Who told him and Igor to head for the hills? Why did they buy one-way tickets? Were they tipped off that they were about to be arrested? If they were tipped off, who tipped them off?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Bill Barr, maybe?

He has access to info about what goes on in SDNY.

[PRETZEL]

20. True,

and didn't Barr get briefed on this the day before?

[davsand]

19. I was troubled by the body language Parnas was exhibiting.

There was a lot going on with his eyes shifting around and his arms coming up to "close" his body to Rachel. Sometimes that is caused by nerves, but sometimes it can indicate resistance or deception. Given the credibility concerns there, it made me wonder. I'd really be interested to hear what other folks saw, TBH.



Laura

[DeminPennswoods]

21. Barbara McQuade said the same thing last

night on O'Donnell's show. With a lot less verbosity, too.